Technology Use Planning Overview

What is Technology Use Planning?

In any kind of organization, technology must be implemented with purpose.  A technology use plan should set out what technology will be used within the organization and how that technology will be used.  It provides members of the organization with a roadmap for the future of technology within the organization and ensures that any purchases or other changes will be a step toward a larger goal.

The National Education Technology Plan

The National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP) sets out a series of audacious goals for the role of technology in American schools.  The purpose of the plan is twofold.  First, it seeks to provide a roadmap in increase the proportion of college graduates from 41% of the population to 60% by 2020.  Second, it seeks to close the achievement gap and ensure that all students leave the public school system prepared for college and careers.

Many of the recommendations of the NETP will result in dramatic changes to the traditional classroom.  Those involved with technology planning at a more local level need to account for these trends in their work. 

The NETP also provides a model for the proper focus of a technology plan in a school.  Too often, technology in education is treated as an end in itself by administrators and policymakers, particularly as the school choice movement gains momentum and technology in a school can serve as a draw for students.  The NETP strives to tie each recommendation to expected outcomes and student achievement.  Since the goal of schools is to give students the skills and knowledge to prepare them for college or employment, a similar focus should be at the center of any technology plan.

What the NETP Misses

Among the ambitious proposals of the NETP are to group students based on ability and prior knowledge rather than age, to base advancement on achievement of outcomes rather than “seat time”, and to offer more opportunities for students to take courses online.  I am concerned that these proposals in particular ignore the importance of social interactions in education.  Students need a chance to interact with peers at a similar level of development and maturity and those who are separated from their age group, either as a result of being accelerated or as a result of being held back, often face significant social challenges and develop behavioral issues.

This does not mean removing the traditional age-grouped structure is bound to fail, particularly if it truly ceases to be the norm, but some attention must be paid to how to ensure students have the opportunity for the social interactions very central to a typical school.  When students spend their day in classrooms and hallways filled with their peers, the interactions necessary to their social development happen naturally and consistently.  If age-level groups disappear, will extra curricular activities need to be expanded, will students organically find their peers outside of school, or is the need for age-level interaction overblown?  These questions need to be considered as part of these dramatic changes.

Short-Term or Long Term?

John See of the Minnesota Department of Education, in his article on what an effective technology use plan should look like, emphasized that a plan should focus on the short-term; he suggests that even a one year plan may be too long.  His argument is that technology changes rapidly, so planning for use five years out is unrealistic and likely to chain an organization to outdated technology.

I certainly agree that a technology plan should include flexibility, particularly when it comes to specific hardware.  To neglect to develop a long-term plan, however, is to ignore many of the realities of a school district.  For example, many districts fund significant technology purchases either through grants or a technology levy approved by voters.  In either case, a specific, long-term proposal is most likely to gain traction.  Even aside from the public relations challenges, many of the processes take significant time. 

For example, my district is currently pursuing a grant to build fabrication laboratories (FABLABs) in our high schools and, once the grant organization makes a decision on the award, it will have been at least six months since our initial steps to pursue this opportunity.  The organization requires a three-year plan and will spread the funding over the same time period.  Even without the requirements of the grant organization, it will take several years to remodel an appropriate space, train the teachers involved, and develop curriculum.  We are also considering questions of how to cover the cost of materials, maintenance, and the other long-term expenses of a FABLAB once the grant has ended.  While decisions about specific equipment will not be made until it is time to make purchases, we need a long-term plan to effectively implement a FABLAB.

Application or Hardware?

See also argues that the most effective technology plans begin with how the technology will be applied rather than the specifics of the quantities and hardware. He makes the very valid point that using application as the starting point ensures the planning committee will be ready to explain to school boards, grant organizations, voters, and stakeholders why the technology is needed.  In addition, school districts have an ethical obligation to use funds responsibly and focusing on the desired outcomes will help technology committees to meet that obligation.

However, See is again neglecting the realities of a public school.  For example, he suggests debates such as Apple vs. PC are irrelevant and districts should adopt, on a case-by-case basis, the platform best suited to the particular use and explicitly argues against standardization.  While every computer in the building certainly does not need to be identical, standardization provides a means for districts to use their resources more efficiently. When there is a single operating system in the district, it becomes very easy to automate processes such as regular back-ups and system updates.  It also allows a very limited number of technology staff to provide support services and troubleshooting.

Purchasing standardized, flexible hardware can also allow a district to get more use out of technology.  For example, my building offers courses in video production, computer-aided drafting (CAD), and robotics.  The ideal computer lab for each course is slightly different, but, since we only offer a few sections of each, computer labs specialized for those courses would spend much of the day either unused or used for more basic purposes.  Instead, we have a single computer lab shared among those three courses.  The lab may not be ideal for any of the courses, but it is flexible enough to work well for all of them.  The space is not only used every period of the day, but also every day after school by either the video production club or the robotics team.  By pooling resources and building a flexible space, we have been able to spend funds on cameras, software, and other tools rather than on computers that would be underused.

My Experience

This fall, my district began using a program called MasteryConnect.  It is a web-based application that allows teachers to upload multiple choice or rubric-based assessments and tie each question to a specific state standard.  After completing an assessment, students place their bubble sheet in front of a webcam and instantly see a score, including which questions they got wrong.  Student scores can be viewed either by assessment or by standard.  Finally, the software integrates with Infinite Campus, our student records system, to allow the easy import of rosters into MasteryConnect and the easy export of scores into the Infinite Campus gradebook.

The Good

As I have watched the implementation of MasteryConnect, there are several things my district has done very well.  First, the introduction of MasteryConnect happened to coincide with the first year we have had a district-wide technology integration specialist.  While his role is to oversee the integration of a wide variety of technology into our classrooms, not just this one tool, he has helped provide a smooth rollout.  He has developed help documents specific to our district, focusing on the tasks we need to perform and the other software we are using in concert with MasteryConnect, and provided more individualized assistance to teachers using this tool in their classrooms.

The district has also sought to develop experts in each building.  Over the summer, teachers from each department within the high schools participated in intensive training on MasteryConnect.  When teachers returned in August, every teacher had someone just down the hall they could go to with questions about the new software.

Finally, the district tied this new software purchase to initiatives already in place to increase student achievement.  Over the past several years, we have sought to increase our use of formative assessment and to provide students with frequent, immediate feedback on their progress.  Many teachers have struggled with how to make these initiatives manageable since it becomes very easy to drown in piles of papers to grade.  MasteryConnect was presented to us as a tool we could use to perform formative assessments.  In addition, this software makes it possible for students to see how they did almost as soon as they finish for truly immediate feedback.  This is a case where technology has been used to meet a real need and truly improve the productivity of teachers and the learning of students.

The Less Good

The rollout of MasteryConnect has not been perfect, though a number of district staff are continually reevaluating the system and seeking solutions to the problems as they appear.  To begin with, classroom lighting has become a surprising challenge.  Many teachers have found the lights in their classroom cause too much glare to properly scan bubble sheets with this software.  In my classroom, I have found how to adjust the lighting to easily scan bubble sheets, but others have had to build makeshift shades out of folders or have given up on the system entirely. 

One of the very appealing aspects of MasteryConnect has been its ability to communicate with our student records system, Infinite Campus.  It turns out, a third party script is being used to facilitate this communication and, as a result, there have been bugs where students who join a class partway through the term (a very frequent occurrence for us) may not appear for several weeks and some teachers' accounts on MasteryConnect are periodically unlinked from the district, removing our access to paid features.  A trouble ticket will usually fix these problems within a few hours, but it is a frustrating hassle.  As the new kid on the block, I would have expected MasteryConenct to be writing their own scripts to sync with established systems like Infinite Campus and they may very well be moving in that direction. 

Both of these issues, and the others that have arisen around MasteryConnect, are minor and will improve with time.  The problem is many teachers are either uncomfortable with technology or are too busy to troubleshoot.  As a result, these bugs are enough that many are making limited or no use of MasteryConnect.  It may have been better to have a select group of teachers willing and able to work around the early problems pilot the system for a trimester, or even a full year.  This would have given the district a chance to iron out the hassles and headaches with people less likely to be turned off by them, then have a smoother rollout to the entire district.

Final Thoughts

The best technology use plans serve a number of different purposes.  They help sell the need for technology to the parties providing funds and resources, they provide teachers and administrators with guidance on how to use new technology, and they determine the resources that will be available for a smooth rollout of new tools.  Meeting each of these needs is challenging, but technology committees must rise to the task to ensure technology is not only used, but used effectively in schools.

Sources 

See, J.  (1992, May 8).  Developing effective technology plans.  Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National education technology plan 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010-execsumm.pdf